Conkordski Crash
Discussion
I think an interesting thought here is that in 2016 can the Chinese just copy a US stealth fighter and sort of looks the same, but does it work?
We know Russia from this sad episode tried the same and it didn't. Supersonic transport in the 70's was really really pushing the boundaries. It's pretty amazing Concorde did so well, it was almost like France and Britains Apollo landings tech wise. So it worked well for so long, but not surprised the Russian one hit turbulence.
So the Chinese stealth fighters. I bet if you put them up against the F22 raptor and all the modern ground to air missiles we might find history repeating.
Looks good for the hawks in China. Build another airfield in the south china seas. Etc etc.
We know Russia from this sad episode tried the same and it didn't. Supersonic transport in the 70's was really really pushing the boundaries. It's pretty amazing Concorde did so well, it was almost like France and Britains Apollo landings tech wise. So it worked well for so long, but not surprised the Russian one hit turbulence.
So the Chinese stealth fighters. I bet if you put them up against the F22 raptor and all the modern ground to air missiles we might find history repeating.
Looks good for the hawks in China. Build another airfield in the south china seas. Etc etc.
If you are ever in Germany near Stuttgart or Heidelberg it's well worth visiting the museum at Sinsheim:
http://sinsheim.technik-museum.de/en/
Here you can see Concorde and the Tu-144 side by side. You can also go on-board each to see the differences.
http://sinsheim.technik-museum.de/en/
Here you can see Concorde and the Tu-144 side by side. You can also go on-board each to see the differences.
Eric Mc said:
I think you will find, as John Farley said in the programme, there was very little in common between the Tu-144 and Concorde - apart from the common goal of building a supersonic airliner.
...and the fact that they looked identical. If you showed the man in the street, 99 out of a 100 would tell you the top pic was Concorde
Just because the "man in the street" couldn't tell them apart does not mean they were the same - or even similar.
The wing used on Concorde is WAY more sophisticated than the double cranked delta used on the Tu-144. In fact, the Russians knew very little about how Concorde used the ogival wing to generate a vortex at slow speed to aid landing and take of.
The original Tu-144 design was so lacking they had to install small retractable foreplanes just behind the cockpit to try and get some control at slow speeds.
They were very, very different aeroplanes.
The wing used on Concorde is WAY more sophisticated than the double cranked delta used on the Tu-144. In fact, the Russians knew very little about how Concorde used the ogival wing to generate a vortex at slow speed to aid landing and take of.
The original Tu-144 design was so lacking they had to install small retractable foreplanes just behind the cockpit to try and get some control at slow speeds.
They were very, very different aeroplanes.
Eric Mc said:
Just because the "man in the street" couldn't tell them apart does not mean they were the same - or even similar.
I was musing on this yesterday, and the question about whether a Chinese copy of a stealth aircraft would be stealthy.There is an oft quoted phrase "if it looks right, then it is right"; and I think this phrase is only partly correct because it is certainly possibly to build a facsimile copy that "looks right" but is, in fact wrong.
In reality, form needs to follow function; so if you design something from a fundamental engineering background and it looks right, then it probably is right.
If however you copy the form without understanding the fundamental engineering reasons for that form, then there's a reasonable probability it will be wrong, especially with more complex systems.
Some bits on wikipedia highlight Erics points about stability. It had the wing further back and hence the canards to hold the nose up, but still a high landing speed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144
Mave said:
There is an oft quoted phrase "if it looks right, then it is right"; and I think this phrase is only partly correct because it is certainly possibly to build a facsimile copy that "looks right" but is, in fact wrong.
When you see the two together close up you notice that the Tupolev has many more curves on it (like a bird) compared to the straighter lines and angles on Concorde.Equilibrium25 said:
Evoluzione said:
....but have a few pics taken at Sinsheim if interested.
Yes please...post away 
It really brings it home how far we've come when you walk up the aisle of Concorde, it's very narrow and cramped.
A few other pics of Sinsheim whilst i'm in the album, it really is a fantastic place to visit>
I think this was a V1 caught in a tree on land which was held by the US in Germany until reasonably recently:
I'm from Leeds, the first thing you see as you walk in:
Made in Leeds.
This was pulled out of the sea or a bog or something and pieced back together, compared to a car engine they are very strange, the crankshaft is at the top of the engine IIRC, someone here will know more and why....
There is a tank there which broke down or got stuck in mud in action, the guys didn't want the enemy to seize it so blew it bits. It cracked all over like an egg and ended up in the bottom of the bomb crater. Years later it was discovered, they pulled it out and put the bits back together quite cleverly so all the cracks are still open, but it resembles a tank.
If this ^^ is your thing the museum should be on your bucket list, i'll never forget it.
Edited by Evoluzione on Wednesday 30th November 14:33
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff